ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2007-11-02 07:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Linguistics; pragmatics; favors; part nine; afternote...
It seems to me that we've come to the end of this discussion, that you've worked out a rough consensus, that you are emphatically not interested in a linguistics-style formalization of that consensus, and that we can move on from this particular Working On The Car Together session to a new topic. However, if I've missed something -- if there are questions left over that you'd like to discuss before the subject is changed -- I'll be glad to do that; just let me know what those questions are.

***

There was one anonymous question this morning that I'm going to try to answer here, on my way out the door -- but it's not really about the favors system. I had said that being old should not be perceived as a disability; and Anonymous commented:

"Pardon the tangent, but why not? Or perhaps, exactly what distinction are you making between 'becoming
disabled' and 'finding yourself unable to do/unable to do adequately things which you were capable of before'?"

I don't believe that old age should be perceived as a disability; an elder may have a separate disabling condition, but old age in itself is not a disability. Infants are unable to walk and care for themselves, but we don't consider them disabled; pregnant women often find themselves hampered in various ways in what they're able to do, but we don't call pregnancy a disability. At the moment, everyone who lives long enough will eventually reach an age at which they'll be "unable to do/unable to do adequately things which they were capable of before," when they were younger. I consider that a normal, ordinary, predictable stage of human life -- not a disability. And I think that it's important to make that distinction, so that people won't fear growing old.

The time may well arrive when science will have put an end to the problem of elders being "unable to do/unable to do adequately things which they were capable of before"; progress is being made. But we're not there yet.

(Post a new comment)


[info]voxwoman
2007-11-02 01:19 pm UTC (link)
Babies are not "disabled" in the legal sense, however, they require a much higher level of care (and vigilance) than a normal adult or older child does.

When one ages, it is frequently accompanied by disabling conditions - and it's those conditions that I associate with "old" - if a person is chronologically old, but still able to do most of the things an "average person" can do, I don't think of them as "old".

I suppose I am appending "and infirm" to the word "old" in my personal dictionary. (And I suppose having an immanent visit with my 92-year-old father to straighten out his finances and determine if he's still capable of dealing with them on his own has a lot to do with my attitudes right now).

(Reply to this)

[info]barbara_the_w
2007-11-02 02:17 pm UTC (link)
pregnant women often find themselves hampered in various ways in what they're able to do, but we don't call pregnancy a disability.

Actually, according to my health insurance...pregnancy is a temporary disability. Like a torn ligament that prevents you from standing.

I thought that was... wierd? disturbing? insulting?

Not sure which, but I did feel a little widgey about it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Response to barbara_the_w...
[info]ozarque
2007-11-02 02:50 pm UTC (link)
"Actually, according to my health insurance...pregnancy is a temporary disability."

Good heavens. That's extraordinary. I feel widgey about it too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
I wish it were "extraordinary"
[info]dawnd
2007-11-02 03:34 pm UTC (link)
Just confirming that yes, pregnancy is classified as a temporary disability according to most insurance plans. It drove me nuts when I was pregnant. They *forced* me to use up all of my sick leave before I got pregnancy leave (which comes out of the temporary disability funds). Which, of course, left me with no sick leave when I came back, for things like doctor's appointments, or *gasp!* being sick. Because, of course, no one *ever* needs to go to the doctor with a newborn, or gets sick when they're sleeping 5 hours a night, in 40 minute chunks. (/sarcasm)

This is not particularly recent, either. It was the case 10 years back, and I suspect for a long time before that. I consider it a sign of the "pathologization" of normal human conditions, things like pregnancy, old age, body diversity (e.g., fat or thin, or even height--that last study turned out to be funded by a company who produces human growth hormone--surprise, surprise).

As you well know, the "medical model" presumes everyone to be a "patient" in need of "healing" or "fixing" in some way. "Normal" is becoming an idea of the past, and more and more narrowly defined. More and more we're being chastised or even penalized for things that used to be just part of the spectrum of human diversity and/or behaviors. I find it increasingly frightening, and I have no idea how we're going to alter this situation.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: I wish it were "extraordinary" ... response to dawnd...
[info]ozarque
2007-11-03 02:15 pm UTC (link)
Yes.... it's the "medical model" that worries me when old age is classified as a disability. When people are old -- and especially if they are old and also lonely -- the medical model is so seductive. Once old age is linked to the sick role, Shazam! -- you're a patient! And everything about being recognized as a patient -- someone who needs regular treatment and needs to be systematically looked after -- undermines the idea of being an independent and self-sufficient elder. There are exceptions, for sure; there are elders who see the doctor regularly, get to the doctor (and back home again) on their own, are actively involved in their treatment plans, take no guff from anybody.... But then there are the others. There are those like my mother, who never stopped insisting to her doctors that there had to be something they could do about her problems, no matter how carefully it was explained to her that they were the normal and predictable problems of old age. There are those who immediately accept the idea that "I'm old, and because of my old age I'm disabled, and I can't do anything any more, and it's all going to be downhill from here," and go straight into clinical depression. They're living in a culture that worships youth and fitness and vigor, and it's so very easy to just give up. I worry that classifying old age as a disability feeds that pattern.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Response to barbara_the_w...
[info]pyesetz
2007-11-02 07:04 pm UTC (link)
My health insurance said they paid for pregnancy treatment "like any other illness".  Calling it an 'illness' is even worse than calling it a 'disability'.  A pregnant woman's body isn't "sick", it's working properly.  Of course, it you were a man (like most doctors), being pregnant would be a seriously-disabling illness where your body's functions would be quite far out-of-spec.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Response to barbara_the_w...
[info]archangelbeth
2007-11-02 09:10 pm UTC (link)
On the other side of things -- with nearly constant nausea for months 2-4 or thereabout, and pre-eclampsia that wound up with the need for a quasi-emergency c-section -- at least there's some recognition that not everyone is entirely unaffected or "loves being pregnant"... (Like my mother did. Which she told me. I shoulda yarped on her feet, except she was 2000 miles away.)

Perhaps the truly squigy thing is the implications of "disability," which should be looked at; if someone is disabled, does that make that person "lesser"?

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Response to barbara_the_w...
[info]memegarden
2007-11-03 04:13 am UTC (link)
During my pregnancy and my daughter's birth, my health insurance coverage was an "illness and injury" coverage only. I had inquired about how pregnancy and childbirth were covered, since I was planning them, and was told "they're covered like any other illness." This was very weird terminology, but I certainly didn't argue it, wanting the process covered!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]lovecraftienne
2007-11-02 02:24 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure if I fear growing old; perhaps a second puberty helps in this regard (I got mine at 26; long story). I do fear the worsening of the pain and discomfort I already deal with from my chronic back condition; I fear because at 41, I've lived hand-to-mouth long enough to have no pension at all yet, and I have no faith that my country's old-age pension will still be around when I am. My family are very long-lived; usually into the 90s, and that's including living through one or two World Wars in London. We get no cancers, diabetes, or any other long-term ailment; some dementia, but then I'm the first to ever finish high school, let alone to think for a living, and I have some hope that this regular exercise of my brain will help me keep it intact longer. I also grew up after rationing ended, so there is every reason to think I'll live even longer than my ancestors (both grandmothers, rest them, were killed in accidents at 84 - both by secondary infections in the hospital. Frankly, if they'd put 'em in casts, and sent 'em home, they'd likely still be going at 90 now).

So I have, genetically, a lot to concern myself with: a time to build my pension (about 25 years) which is nearly equivalent to the length of time I'll likely need to live on it (again, 25 years or so, perhaps longer). That I have no birth-children to rely on. That my family, save for my sister, are all older; and she has no children either, and we're kind of half-estranged.

I also have the prospect of 25 years of technological improvement in assisted living between now and then; 25 years ago, things were quite different in many ways. This is good, as I shall likely be deaf by then; my tinnitus grows worse year by urban year, courtesy my foolishness as a teen when the brand-new "Walkman" came out (OMG!).

I don't think there's anything unrealistic in my fears; I just have to choose what to do about it. What I'm doing is trying, desperately, to make enough money to save; trying to be gentle on my ears (no more concerts, for a start). Trying to be good to my children (step children, and a foster, from a previous relationship). Trying to make up with my family. Making sure I have strong ties in my community, to my friends and their families, as they make them.

I also listen to my elders, much better than I did when I was younger; I want, like everything else in life, not to enter the stage unresearched. So I, anyway, get great value from your posts about elders and growing older. :)

And I try to be happy. You caught me in the middle of that yesterday, actually, [info]ozarque. I try actively to maintain a happy place as I move through life. Today, my hair is purple, and even if it's not a hat, it's still good enough for me right now.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]lovecraftienne
2007-11-02 02:26 pm UTC (link)
Oh, and next year? I'm playing rugby for the first time. Because I'm only taking this path in one direction, and this is the easiest time I'll ever have to do anything. It only gets harder from here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]dichroic
2007-11-02 03:59 pm UTC (link)
Sports can help, especially masters sports. I'm 40. I row. I look forward to aging: because every year I get older, I get a little better handicap in races, and because my community gives me models like Marilyn from Alaska who learned to row and began competing at 70 or Kearney from San Diego, who began rowing in his youth and was still competing at 91.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lovecraftienne
2007-11-02 05:14 pm UTC (link)
Truth! I should mention I do play soccer twice a week, year-round, and referee and coach too. And not having a car means I get to walk a bunch - I'm taking my fitness seriously. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]bemusedoutsider
2007-11-03 06:27 am UTC (link)
I'm in a similar situation. My strategy has been to acquire land -- free and clear -- enough to live on and with space for someone to park a trailer on in exchange for some care-giving when I reach that point. Hopefully this will lessen the problem of running out of savings, since there will be no rent or salary to pay.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]hilleviw
2007-11-02 02:26 pm UTC (link)
I don't actually disagree with anything in your post, but there's something vaguely disturbing to me about the implied stigma attached to "disabled", and the rush to dissociate from disability.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Response to hilleviw...
[info]ozarque
2007-11-02 02:48 pm UTC (link)
I understand what you're saying -- it was on my mind the whole time I was writing that post, and I kept editing and re-editing, trying to find a way to word it so that it wouldn't seem to imply that stigma and that rush in the opposite direction. It may be that the stigma already attached to old age in the mainstream Anglo culture means it's not possible to find a neutral wording; I don't know. I can only tell you that being disabled, as I perceive it, isn't an ordinary "stage of life"; it's a misfortune. Not something that should have a stigma attached, but something that interferes -- usually -- with whatever stage of life you're in when it comes your way. But old age, unless you die while still young, is absolutely ordinary, and happens to everyone without exception. It seems to me that medicalizing it is totally wrong-headed.

I am truly sorry not to be able to find a more felicitous way to write about this, and I hope I haven't caused you distress.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Response to hilleviw...
[info]hilleviw
2007-11-02 05:01 pm UTC (link)
No no, no distress. Just, as I said, a vague dis-ease. And when I wondered how it might have been said differently, I didn't come up with anything better either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Response to hilleviw...
[info]hilleviw
2007-11-02 05:10 pm UTC (link)
And on further thought...it may be that because of my own health issues and experiences I've come to consider the having of a disability to be a pretty mainstream experience, which most people will have at one or another time, even if not on a chronic basis. And as I've mentioned to you before, I do really believe that everyone has some weakness with which to cope. Whether that thing is an internal or external physical condition, or an emotional disorder, or an unpleasant personality trait, I don't really perceive it to be qualitatively different. I'm no more responsible for having bones that are dissolving, than my former next door neighbor is responsible for being an abrasive jerk. And at least my weakness garners assistance; his weakness just pushed all support away.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Response to hilleviw...
[info]dyssocialbtrfly
2007-11-04 12:58 am UTC (link)
being disabled, as I perceive it, isn't an ordinary "stage of life"; it's a misfortune.

I'd like to turn your argument around a bit and say we should remove the stigma/difference from being disabled. Everyone needs help or assistance to do certain things. The assistance will vary between different people and at different times. It seems a bit odd to me to say if it's because of a certain life stage, thats normal, but if it's the result of something else then it's a disability. (Wouldn't that make pregnancy a disability as well?)

Disability is part of the normal spectrum of life as well. Some quick figures I found show that the 12.6% of the population of the USA is over 65 but 19.3% of the population has a disability. While that page didn't have a percentage of people that would experience disability at some point on their life (I also couldn't find a statistic for percentage of people expected to live over 65), it did say that "The reality is that just about everyone – women, men and children of all ages, races and ethnicities – will experience a disability some time during his or her lifetime."

So statistically anyway at this point in time, it's more common/normal to have a disability rather than to be old. It also appears that it's more likely to have a disability than to get to be old. So I reckon we should focus on removing the fear of being unable to do things for any reason, be it disability, old age, pregnancy or whatever.

I'm not so good at the wording, so just to make it clear, I'm not attacking your statement - people shouldn't fear getting old! - but I don't think there should be this big distinction around disability being not normal or different or unnatural.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-11-02 03:27 pm UTC (link)
Hilleviw makes more or less the same point that I was trying to get at with that comment.

I don't disagree with anything that; you've said here, but I think ideally we shouldn't have so much fear and stigma attached to becoming permanently or temporarily disabled, either. The fact that there are people replying to this entry who feel disturbed and insulted at having their pregnancy considered similar to disability is a symptom of precisely the same sort of issue that led me to question your distinction in the first place.

There's a degree to which many disabilities inherently interfere with a person's ability to participate in society, but there's also a degree to which they interfere far more than they actually need to simply because society hasn't bothered to make the changes that would allow disabled people to participate. Disability being treated exclusively as a medical issue while ignoring the social issues is as problematic to me as treating old age as entirely a medicalized issue.

~same anonymous poster as before

(Reply to this)

[info]nolly
2007-11-02 05:46 pm UTC (link)
Infancy and pregnancy are temporary conditions. They get better.
Old age and the things we'd agree are disabilities last the rest of one's life, barring major medical breakthroughs. So I see no reason, other than dissociating from stigmas around "disability" to not put them in the same bucket.

(Also, I apologize for that sentence; the structure is horrid. I don't currently have the wordsmithing in me to fix it, though; it's tangly because my brain is tangly this morning.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]starcat_jewel
2007-11-05 07:03 pm UTC (link)
That was exactly what I was thinking. Thank you for saying it so well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-11-02 05:52 pm UTC (link)
I have a question left over from the favors discussion - it didn't quite fit into any of the categories that came up. Any suggestions for dealing with the grantor of a favor who then makes the power imbalance blatant? An example from my life: my friend agreed readily to give me a ride to Costco. He offered Thursday, then changed it to Saturday, then to "Thurs-Fri-Sat"... and holding, so far. No explanation offered for the changes.

I'm totally Ask. Is he hinting that he'd rather not do this?

Meg Umans

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]meepa
2007-11-02 06:17 pm UTC (link)
It may be that he feels he doesn't need to explain the reason to you; possible reasons include it being overwhelmingly personal or merely that he thinks it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as he can't do the original day.

It may be that it is a significant hardship for him, but he's OK doing it as long as it doesn't impinge on his life too much, but he doesn't want to come right out and say that.

It may be that he originally thought it would be OK but now he doesn't want to do it (for all sorts of reasons) and doesn't want to come right out and say it.

To use an example from my own life, I was planning to go to an event involving camping in the woods. I drive a station wagon and I have a lot of camping gear; I initally offered to give rides to as many people as would fit given that I have to fit enough gear in there so that I can go camping with my disability, and to loan out or share extra gear.

Someone replied to me, asking me if I had room for her. I told her "sure" and explained when I planned to leave and when I planned to return. She began attempting to negotiate; I tried to explain that this was not negotiable. She continued attempting to negotiate. I then decided that going to the conference was not worth the stress of dealing with her, and told her I was no longer planning to go.

This is an example where the person in question caused the unwillingness to grant the favor initially offered, but there are also reasons that don't involve you. Maybe he's having a really stressful work week and just can't deal with having to drive you around too. Maybe he's been driving around with stuff all over his car and just doesn't have the energy to clean it out. Maybe he has a boss who's bad about telling him what days he has to work late and just hasn't told him whether he'll have time to drive you any of those days.

I hope that helps some.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]starcat_jewel
2007-11-05 07:09 pm UTC (link)
FYI, I think that (1) the other person was extremely rude in continuing to attempt to negotiate after you said your departure and return times were non-negotiable, and (2) it would have been perfectly acceptable for you to withdraw your offer given that she wasn't able to cope with your terms, or to say, "This is when I'm leaving/returning; if that's inconvenient for you, feel free to look for another ride."

Canceling your own plans to attend the event strikes me as a bit like biting off your nose to spite your face, unless it was something you were of two minds about doing anyhow and she just provided a convenient excuse.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]meepa
2007-11-02 06:21 pm UTC (link)
I'd like to chime in and say that I feel grumpy about what I read as a slur on the disabled. I feel like if we admit that pregnant women and (some) old people ARE disabled (pregnant woman only temporarily), then maybe people will quit talking like disabled people are somehow less important than the rest of you. Maybe they'll also start making sure disability services actually WORK, like in stores and stuff.

I see a disability as anything that interferes substantially with normal daily activities.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]curtana
2007-11-02 06:57 pm UTC (link)
Maybe they'll also start making sure disability services actually WORK, like in stores and stuff.

I realized once I had a child in a stroller how many places I liked to go (shops, restaurants, subways, etc.) didn't have elevators or ramps, had narrow doorways, tiny bathroom stalls, etc. Not to mention how many places have no change tables, which is another story entirely. I guess what I'm saying is, if businesses aren't willing to change to accommodate people with children, which is a much larger percentage of the population than the disabled, why would we expect them to change to give access to, e.g. people in wheelchairs? I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that I think you're, unfortunately, probably over-optimistic to hope that any mental association with pregnant women and/or the elderly will be enough to effect serious changes, since these also tend to be groups with relatively low social importance or influence and negligible respect from the community at large.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ahistoricality
2007-11-03 01:41 am UTC (link)
There is a whole discourse in the disability community on this issue, which can be roughly summed up by the use of the term "temporarily able-bodied" for the so-called non-disabled folks.

It's a small piece, but I wrote a little introduction to some of the issues which might be helpful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Response to ahistoricality...
[info]ozarque
2007-11-03 12:59 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for posting that link. I read your post -- very interesting, very informative, very thought-provoking -- and I read all the comments. I like your analysis, and I wish I had even tentative answers for the questions it raises; I don't. I don't have a clear sense of how I feel about "temporarily able-bodied"; it seems to me that accepting that term logically entails accepting the idea that old age is a disability -- a disability that puts an end to the state of being temporarily able-bodied -- and I'm uncomfortable with that entailment. The terminology issue is a semantic quagmire; good for you for wading into it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-11-04 12:07 am UTC (link)
Yes, we are all more or less abled/disabled in various dimensions, but how do you talk about continua? Labels are so much handier, and in some cases they're true enough to be useful. I suppose the reason there's so much pain and fussing around the "disability", "handicap", etc. labels is because they divide the world unreasonably into "us" and "them" and because they hide the nuances of multiple abilities.

I am not legally disabled, but I have also never been fully able-bodied. It gives me a sort of perverse pleasure to interact with people who have admired my abilities when my disabilities are most visible. It forces them to recognize that I don't fit neatly into either box. So my acquaintances do know that there's a continuum of physical ability, but there really isn't a handy way to talk about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ahistoricality
2007-11-04 02:02 am UTC (link)
how do you talk about continua?

You talk about them. It's more complicated, but since one of the foundations of the social and economic system which disadvantages the disabled is the oversimplification inherent in "handy" labels.... I don't see a choice, frankly.

The flip side is that you don't talk about them. Which is to say, addressing what people do and say and accomplish first, and leave the disabilities aside until and unless they are relevant. That's not a point I need to emphasize too much in this crowd, but it ranks as one of the most common journalistic errors, and the tendency to jump to conclusions from visual cues is fairly powerful in the non-virtual world.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…